Archive for November, 2008

“Names touch everything…”

Monday, November 24th, 2008 by Karen

“Names touch everything” came up early in the series of conference calls held with the Networking Names Advisory Group, prior to our meeting on November 17, 2008 hosted by the Metropolitan Museum of Art in New York City. And indeed they do.

Networking Names Advisory Group at the Met, 2008-11-17We learned, for example, from Suzanne Pilsk (Smithsonian) that there are “plant authors” – people who discover or name plants, but do not necessarily write the articles about them. The group came up with a large number of potential users and uses for the Cooperative “Identities Hub” – both as a type of “switch” that could link from and to various sources of names, and as a means to take advantage of social networking, where people could add, edit, and provide additional information about the names they found. Many categories of target audience could potentially do multiple functions:

  • Help manage their own information (and not just librarians, archivists, and museum curators, but data custodians of various ilks)
  • Contribute new or corrected information to names represented in the hub
  • Seek information about names where their own sources may be inadequate
  • We have a recent example of linking to names across domains. The Powerhouse Museum in Sydney added links from persons represented in their museum collection catalog to WorldCat Identities for information about their published works. My colleague Thom Hickey was able to point to an example in his recent talk at the National Library of Australia’s 2008 forum. Scroll down to the “Person” section in the right column you’ll see several with a [view on WorldCat] annotation. The link to the Bob Carr WorldCat Identities page gives additional context to the museum’s information.

    The group came up with five sets of use case scenarios: archivists, publishers, institutional repositories, aggregators and other types of repositories, and universities. We’ll be following up on our discussions and producing a report summarizing the recommendations.

    Complementing RIN

    Monday, November 24th, 2008 by John

    The UK’s Research Information Network (RIN) has just published a document aimed at UK university Vice Chancellors, Presidents and Principals, Ensuring a bright future for research libraries. Jim Michalko, Lorcan Dempsey and I met with representatives of RIN, along with other European library and research organisations, after our recent European Partner meeting in Paris, and it seems clear – as Lorcan remarks in his blog – that our work agenda for the RLG Partnership coincides in various ways with the work being undertaken by RIN. Here are a few examples.

    In Linking library content and collections to research strategies they state:

    No single institution can provide all the publications and other information resources – digital and non-digital – that their researchers need to consult in the course of their research… HEIs therefore should … seek to exploit the potential for collaboration with other libraries, including the national libraries and the five designated major research libraries in England.

    In our Shared Print Collections programme, we say that

    A new business model is needed that will enable research libraries to establish partnerships capable of sustaining the long-term future of print collections, distributing the costs and benefits of acquiring and preserving content in tangible formats, and allowing aggregate holdings to be “right sized” in view of aggregate demand.

    They also recommend that universities

    should … develop and implement policies and procedures to determine which information resources should be managed and preserved over the long term and how; which can be disposed of within a shorter time, and how such disposals should be managed … establish polices for managing their holdings of low-use printed material where the content is available in digital form; and participate in the UK Research Reserve and other collaborative initiatives to ensure that they adopt a planned and coherent approach to disposal

    Our project to Deaccession Materials held in Print and Electronic Form, which we are running with the help of Ithaka and JSTOR, takes as its starting point

    There is clearly a need for aggregated information about costs associated with storing, preserving and delivering material from print back runs of e-journals, as well as data on the costs of discarding titles before and after they have been placed in storage. A comprehensive roster of print archives and access agreements would also be a worthy contribution to efforts in this area, particularly a title-by-title registry of which instituions are committed to retaining which materials, and providing access to them.

    Under the same heading, they request that universities Explicitly relate the development and acquisition of special collections of rare material to the research strengths of the institution. Our new theme Mobilizing Unique Materials includes a project to Define the State of Holdings and Description for Archives. This will use datamining methods to provide data which should help with that explicit identification of rare materials and research priorities within institutions.

    Providing institutions with a system-wide view of archival collection descriptions would provide a new input into these prioritization decisions and could help inform funding agency support.

    Under the theme of Cataloguing, navigation, discovery, delivery and access they ask universities to

    encourage their libraries to share catalogue records with other libraries; to make them available through collaborative catalogues and online discovery services, both national and international; and to ensure that they are exposed and made available to users through Google and other search engines

    In our Share Best Practices for Metadata Creation Workflows Project (within the Knowledge Structure theme) we say

    Information professions are eager to know what workflows work best in different environments that could be applied to their own and that would facilitate metadata flow in and among libraries, archives and museums.

    Our Infrastructure theme, meanwhile, has a range of work going on within the Web Enablement programme.

    RIN advises universities to encourage their libraries to work with others in developing innovative services that integrate into researchers’ workflows. In our new programme, Support for the Research Process, we are just starting on an Academic Research Landscape Project

    As a foundational stage of the program, we are carrying out an analysis of research workflows and research information management practices, to ‘anatomize’ the area into its various components.

    RIN has a strong focus on scholarly communication, patchily tied in to research evaluation in the UK via the national Research Assessment Exercise and its developing successor.

    HEIs … should …develop clear policies and procedures as to the roles that institutional and/or subject-based repositories should play in promoting access to institutional research outputs, as well as in facilitating the creation of registers of these outputs for research evaluation

    They go on to address the library’s potential role in the contentious area of bibliometric approaches to research assessment. Institutions should

    draw on the expertise and advice of library and information professionals in making use of bibliometric and cybermetric tools, which are likely to play an increasing role in the assessment and evaluation of research outputs and impact at international, national and institutional levels.

    Our new Workflows in Research Assessment programme is in the process of commissioning a Survey of Current Practice which will

    survey the research information management landscape across its various dimensions – cultural (what are the research assessment drivers?), geographic (which countries have well-developed infrastructures and systems?), technological (what systems are being employed or developed?) and institutional (how are libraries embedded into research information systems?).

    The scope document for that survey makes explicit reference to analysing bibliometric approaches in use in a range of countries.

    Finally, we have recently categorised our outputs into four main areas: Change and community (challenging editorials, Partner events, workshops, etc); Best practice architecture & standards; Beta development & tools; and Evidence – business intelligence and user observation. Business intelligence in one form is represented by reports and other outputs based on datamining. RIN urges UK universities to

    seek to benchmark their library and information services for the support of research against comparable institutions both in the UK and overseas; and participate in collaborative work that seeks to identify and where possible to quantify the benefits and returns from investments that they make in their library and information services

    This emphasis on return on investment is also a key theme for RLUK, as stated in its Strategic Plan 2008-2011 (as Demonstrating Value). Our programmes and projects provide many opportunities for assembling data which support the demonstration of value both institutionally and at various levels of collaboration.

    The RIN report boldly asks Vice Chancellors, Presidents and Principals to invest more in their libraries – and points to libraries as sources of leadership on campus in new areas where establishing that authority will take strong and concerted effort:

    The services that librarians and information professionals provide have … changed fundamentally over the past decade. They can now do much more to provide leadership that brings improvements in research performance and effectiveness … Librarians and information services need the resources and the continuing top-level support within their institutions to ensure that they can fulfil their potential and meet these challenges.

    Let’s hope they listen! We are keen that the work which we are undertaking within OCLC Research in so many similar areas can add breadth to RIN’s work, and can gain some depth of understanding of the UK context from it. In conclusion, they come down to earth with a well-understood library case for the cooperative approach:

    recognise that there is scope for cost savings through the sharing of information resources and expertise, and through the development of collaborative services

    We couldn’t have put it any better.

    Europeana Launch

    Thursday, November 20th, 2008 by Ricky

    Good news, bad news for our European colleagues today.

    Europeana, which provides access to two million digital objects from the collections of EU cultural institutions, officially launched today. The massive attention it received brought the site to its knees. An estimated 10 million hits an hour caused them to take the site down to double capacity. [I think the closest RLG came to such "success" was back when the internet was a bit less robust. As we launched a service, the internet slowed to a crawl. It took a little while before we realized that a big Victoria's Secret promotion had simultaneously hit the wires.]

    While we enjoyed Europeana’s “Boots” video clip, it will be great to see the real thing in action!

    Europeana is well on its way to reaching its goal of ten million items by 2010. While we often think of portals as unnecessarily limiting silos, when a portal opens onto this much content, I think it’s warranted. Of course, we’re interested to see if this content will turn up in Google search results, too.

    LIFE photography reborn on Google

    Thursday, November 20th, 2008 by GĂĽnter

    Google is digitizing 10 Million photographs from the LIFE photo archive. 2 Million are already available, and the complete set will be accessible from Google Image Search as well as this dedicated site within 3 months.

    Quoth the Official Google Blog:

    Only a very small percentage of these images have ever been published. The rest have been sitting in dusty archives in the form of negatives, slides, glass plates, etchings, and prints. We’re digitizing them so that everyone can easily experience these fascinating moments in time.

    I find this notable for a number of reasons:

    1. I wonder about the nature of the partnership Google struck with LIFE. It sounds like Google did the digitizing, and it looks like LIFE got a “Purchase Image Merchandise” link with their logo above it. (And who wouldn’t want to have a framed print of Krushchev oogling Jackie Kennedy “as her mother-in-law Rose Kennedy looks on proudly”?)

    2. I wonder whether we will come to look at this as Google throwing down the gauntlet to challenge the Flickr Commons, or whether this partnership was merely an opportunistic enterprise.

    3. Along those lines, I wonder whether Google will aim to strike public/private partnerships to digitize photographic archives from the cultural heritage community. (Flickr so far has only provided a platform to present images, yet no financing to get collections digitized.)

    4. I wonder how long it took to digitize the photographs “in the form of negatives, slides, glass plates, etchings, and prints,” and whether Google created a proprietary scanning station for these materials as they did for books. Mass digitization for photographs, anyone?

    The Chicago Tribune has this short story on this development with a quote from LIFE president Andrew Blau:

    “We don’t think we’re giving away the store,” Blau says. “We have 10 million images, some of the most important in world history, and they’re not being seen. To have the entire collection in a warehouse in Jersey City is not to the benefit of the photography.”

    It looks like LIFE is also planning to make these images available in its new incarnation as a website at

    Print preservation and peer review: a narrowing prospective?

    Wednesday, November 19th, 2008 by Constance

    [Here's a bit of half-baked blog fodder I thought had been published months ago. It seems newly relevant, so rather than discard it, I thought I'd put it out for public dissection. Have at it, fellow anatomizers.]

    I’ve been thinking [ca. September 2008] quite a bit recently about peer review and its relationship to print preservation and access initiatives among research libraries. A recent white paper from Ithaka, summarizing findings from range of recent studies on faculty and librarian views of the transition from print to online scholarly communication practices, prompted me to reconsider the ways in which discoverability and availability of library print collections is likely to affect scholarship in a largely digital information landscape. The prospective value of academic print collections (outside of special collections) is largely determined by scholarly communication practices and the paradigm of peer review. So long as content in print continues to play a role in the creation, exchange or verification of scholarly work, it is likely to survive.

    A while back, Merrilee and I took a look at the copyright status of US imprints in WorldCat and citation patterns in a selected set of scholarly publications in the humanities. The point of this exercise was to gauge the potential impact of increased online access to public domain content made available through mass digitization efforts. The results were not encouraging: less than 20% of the US imprints represented in the WorldCat database were judged to be in the public domain, hence available for broad electronic distribution, while a majority of scholarly citations referenced in-copyright content in books and journals. It didn’t appear to us that “freeing” the content of every public domain title would necessarily enable researchers to do more of the kind of intellectual work that is currently most valued and rewarded by the academic community. This is not a judgment of the quality or importance of such work compared to innovative approaches that might be supported by increased digital access, simply an observation that current scholarly practices depend upon the availability of content that is protected by copyright. Universal online access to a time-bound fragment of the scholarly record is likely to produce a narrower (if arguably deeper) kind of knowledge; one implication of this is that library owned print collections will continue to play an important role in extending access to scholarly perspectives that don’t rise to the surface of the Web in digital collections.

    James Evans, a sociologist at the University of Chicago, recently published a study in which he examined citation rates for peer-reviewed articles published in online scientific journals. The results of his study, “Electronic Publication and the Narrowing of Science and Scholarship,” originally published in Science (Vol. 321, No. 5887, 18 July 2008, 395-399 [abstract]), were summarized in an article in the Economist, which noted that:

    …as more journals become available online, fewer articles are being cited …. Moreover, those articles that do get a mention tend to have been recently published themselves. Far from growing longer, the long tail is being docked.
    ["Great Minds Great minds think (too much) alike" The Economist, July 17th 2008]

    Quite a lot of attention has been devoted to the question of how online availability affects the impact (as measured in citations) of scholarly publications. Proponents of open access, in particular, have been keen to demonstrate that the increased accessibility of content in pre- and e-print repositories results in greater citation rates and presumably greater penetration into the collective scientific consciousness. Evans takes a different stance, arguing that the increasing scope of online scholarly content is — paradoxically — narrowing our perspective (or “prospective” as the Economist cannily puts it). His research was based on examination of citations to content in journals whose print back-files have come online over the past decade or so. Counter to what one might expect, the increasing availability of content was correlated with a decreasing frequency of citation. Several prominent figures in the open access community have questioned Evans’ interpretation of the citation patterns, preferring to see the increasing concentration (narrowing range of citations) as a sign that the best quality work is attracting well-deserved attention: the signal strength of the best papers is being intensified. Some of this critical commentary is summarized in the useful OpCit bibliography of studies on the citation impact of open access.

    Roger Schonfeld, manager of research projects at Ithaka, has also looked at citation rates as a function of online availability. Ithaka has close ties to JSTOR, so it is not especially surprising that they have studied the impact of back-file digitization on scholarly practice. In a project with researchers at the University of Michigan and Dartmouth College, Roger examined the impact of digitization (that is, the increasing availability of journal articles in digital archives like JSTOR) on citation rates to content previously available in print-only format. Their findings suggested that the “online advantage” varied by discipline, ranging from a 5% to 20% boost in citations. The sciences benefited from the greatest increase in citations following digitization; the humanities (history, in particular) benefitted the least. In contrast to Evans’ findings, there was no evidence that online availability hastened the demise — or shortened the half-life — of the scholarly literature, nor any suggestion that the range of scholarly enquiry had been curtailed. Ithaka was tracking impact on journal titles, not articles, so the studies are not easily compared. The Ithaka study (briefly outlined here) nevertheless raises perplexing questions about the impact of online access on increasing the longevity and vitality of a scholarly record “gone dark” (figuratively speaking) in less-used and less-discoverable print collections.

    All of this begs the question of how print collections function in current scholarly workflows. Evans speculates that scholarly interactions with literature in print formats are intrinsically different from research in the online environment. Similar assertions are often offered up as a justification for retaining print collections (especially journal collections) that are duplicated in electronic format, even when there is little evidence that the print collections are continuing to fulfill a “browsing” function. Carol Mandel, Dean of Libraries at New York University, has observed that what faculty — like Evans — mean when they say that browseable collections are central to the library’s function may be less about the materiality, proximity or accessability of print than the social dimensions of scholarship, and the degree to which the library is able foster communication between researchers and the scholarly record, regardless of format. Her point is that the library’s function is defined by its engagement with the scholarly process, and not by a particular medium of communication.

    It seems to me that we are lacking a risk assessment framework [cf. some current work just reported on] against which the prospective value of print collections can be measured with confidence. Academic library investments in electronic resources dwarf investments in print, but operational workflows are still dominated by models developed for building and managing print collections in a period when library-owned content was viewed as a durable institutional asset. As scholarly activity has moved into the network space, the ways in which collections deliver (and accrue) value has changed; visibility, mobility, and referenceability are all key to maximising the usefulness of research resources in the online environment.

    [This is where the original post petered out. Ironically, I find that I returned to these same themes -- the changed scholarly value of print collections -- in my gruesomely turncated remarks at the recent RLG European partners meeting. Some fruits are slow to ripen. ]

    Managing Risk: Print Journal Collections

    Tuesday, November 18th, 2008 by Constance

    In a prior post on risk assessment and print preservation, I remarked on the need for some community-wide effort to define collective preservation goals and requirements:

    Given unrelenting space pressures on library print collections, and decreasing circulation rates, it seems imperative that libraries – research libraries, in particular – take immediate action to establish a common understanding of our respective (and collective) preservation goals and identify the core requirements for managing this highly distributed, thinly duplicated resource as a single, shared collection.

    I gestured toward RLG libraries as a constituency that might be mobilized in support of such work.

    Not long after this, Ross Housewright and Roger Schonfeld commented on the need for a “systemwide approach” to library preservation:

    Preservation issues cannot be adequately addressed in a purely local fashion. For example, it is quite reasonable that any individual library might deaccession certain little-used print holdings, but there is a system-wide need to ensure the preservation of an adequate number of print copies to enable future scholarship and potential digitization work. Without system-wide frameworks in place, libraries will be unable to make decisions that effectively balance risk and opportunity with regard to the deaccessioning of print materials.
    [R. Housewright and R. Schonfeld, Ithaka's 2006 Studies of Key Stakeholders in the Digital Transformation in Higher Education (August 2008), p. 31]

    I’m pleased to say that a group of collection managers at RLG libraries has come together to work on a critically important piece of that framework, in a project focused on print journals in the humanities, a class of materials that we believe exhibits particular preservation risk characteristics. It’s well known that print books and journals continue to play an essential role in the work of humanities scholars but represent an increasingly small proportion of library acquistion budgets; specialized titles are often acquired by only a small number of research-intensive institutions. This low level of redundancy, coupled with widespread uncertainties about the appropriate ‘locus’ of a continuing print preservation mandate, places these titles at signficant risk of accidental (and permanent) loss.

    We’ve now embarked on a project to establish a common methodology for identifying at-risk titles in local collections and generic workflows for managing them as a shared scholarly resource. Using Candi Yano’s analysis of optimal overlap in library print collections as a guide, we established a threshold of risk based on aggregate library holdings in WorldCat for a set of humanities-based journal titles. In the absence of aggregate use measures, we agreed to focus on peer-reviewed titles as a proxy for scholarly value. Monographic series and conference proceedings were excluded from the sample, which was further limited to titles distributed in print-only format. We then identified a subset of titles that are held by at least one member of the project team and which will be reviewed as a candidate for permanent retention.

    The presumption is that research libraries that have already made an investment in collecting these relatively recondite titles have already asserted a tacit interest in their preservation: this project is aimed at clarifying institutional expectations and commitments regarding their longterm preservation, so that we can begin frame a ‘systemwide’ view of collections that is robust enough to support changed management at the local level. We will be compiling cost (acquisitions and processing) figures and usage data as part of this work with an eye to modeling aggregate financial requirements for longterm sustainability.

    This initiative has only just begun and it will take some time before we know if the approach we’ve taken can be effectively scaled up. In the meantime, some readers may be interested to see which journal titles have made the list. We’ve identified 130 titles that meet our selection criteria thus far, and we’ll be adding to it as time goes by. Here is a public version of the title list built within I was surprised to find that one of the titles on our list — a Polish art history journal — had already been flagged by another WorldCat user (traveling under the alias ‘bibliographer’). A sign, I suppose, these relatively rare print resources will continue to find an audience, provided they are raised up and made visible in the network.

    Rencontre Ă  Paris

    Tuesday, November 18th, 2008 by John

    A group of over 60 of us met in Paris the week before last for our European Partner Meeting – the first held since RLG became part of OCLC. I was pleased that most of our European Partner institutions were represented – some by several staff members (and it was nice to welcome David Ferriero from the NYPL to our meeting). We assembled the group on the evening of Wednesday 5 November, with dinner, allowing a full day for presentations and discussion on Thursday 6th. Of course, we were pushed for time, having only the single day. We had programmed presentations on several aspects of our work, together with scene-setting by Jim Michalko and Lorcan Dempsey. Constance spoke about the collective collection, and Richard Ovenden from Oxford gave a case study. Lynn Silipigni Conaway gave a fascinating presentation on ‘screenager’ user studies she has been doing lately.

    I spoke about the new research information management work, focusing on research assessment; Sheila Cannell provided the Edinburgh case study. Lorcan discussed recent metadata developments, and Christian Lupovici from the Bibliothèque Nationale updated us on impressive work going on there. GĂĽnter discussed our activities in the museums area, and did a double-act with Doug Dodds from the V&A. And Jim introduced our new ‘Mobilising Unique Materials’ work area. The presentations are now available on our web site. Audio files were also made of the presentations, and will be mounted as soon as my colleagues have had a chance to edit them.

    For our part, we were delighted to have the opportunity to meet so many of our European Partner colleagues in one place. We hope to repeat the event – in other Partner city locations – and will adjust the format to allow for more time for formal and informal discussion. Most delegates, judging by the feedback, found the event valuable (and we promise next time to try to avoid a 15-minute projection hitch at the beginning of the day, to provide enough coffee, to be more vegetarian-friendly, to avoid the distraction of a presidential election, and to stay clear of days when the rail network is hit by a strike!). Thanks to all who attended.

    William Gibson’s Agrippa and mal d’archive

    Sunday, November 16th, 2008 by Jennifer

    I didn’t come to Austin to get an archival jolt from a digital artists’ book. I’ve been at the Ransom Center this weekend attending a conference on literary archives and writers’ papers, “Creating a Usable Past.” I have never seen William Gibson’s 1992 artists’ book, one evidently well-known on the Internet. The cataloging notes say Agrippa has some photosensitive engravings and a disk holding the poem, “which may be displayed on a computer screen only once, and then is irretrievably encrypted.” Matt Kirschenbaum, professor at MITH, hacked the code of Agrippa and played it for us on a Mac emulator. Matt tells us his work will be up on the web in six weeks or so.

    I was having something akin to Ted Bishop’s experience with the symptoms of archive fever. Ted is a Virginia Woolf scholar. In Riding with Rilke he describes the “jolt” of reading Woolf’s suicide letter. Yesterday morning the audience at the august Ransom Center was reading Agrippa on the big screen. The Mac emulator made it feel a bit like I was reading it in 1992. Back in 1992 I don’t think I knew what an artists’ book was.

    Three of UT’s undergraduates have been blogging the conference at flairforarchives.

    And a Good Hack Was Had By All

    Friday, November 14th, 2008 by Roy

    The first WorldCat Hackathon was held last week at the Science, Industry, and Business Library of New York Public Library, an RLG Partner institution. We had more than thirty attendees, with over 60% from RLG Partner institutions. Judging from the feedback we received from attendees both in person and on the evaluation forms, I think it was a rousing success. It’s hard to get a true feel for the event if you weren’t there, but both pictures and a video are available to try to give you a flavor for it. Even so, there’s nothing I can do for you about the incredible food you missed (thanks, Alice!).

    We began the day with introductions  and brief reviews of various Grid Services we offer. We also handed out a list of other library-related APIs that I maintain. We solicited ideas on how participants wanted to break up into groups, “voted” on where we wanted to go, and sent the groups off to various rooms based on the participant count. We debriefed toward the end of the first day, and facilitated group dinners with sign-up sheets.

    Based on feedback we’d received on the first day, we offered an ad hoc “Web Services 101″ course on the second day for those who wanted a more gentle introduction to SOAP, REST, SRU, and related topics. At the end of the day we also offered a review of the Common Query Language (CQL) part of SRU. My research colleague Ralph LeVan (also known as “Mr. SRU”) did an excellent job of both informal courses, and was ably assisted by my San Mateo office colleague Bruce Washburn.

    A major part of the success of the event beyond the learning that happened was actual running code, which Eric Morgan of the University of Notre Dame does a pretty good job of covering in his blog post on the Hackathon. People did some really interesting things, and I think we’re just beginning to see some of the innovative things coders will find to do with some of these services.

    We couldn’t have done it without our partner hosts, NYPL Labs led by Josh Greenberg, and my colleague Alice Sneary who handled the logistics with incredible skill and aplomb, including finding a top-notch t-shirt designer that created a crowd pleaser t-shirt for the event (and no, you cannot have mine!).

    Given that this event seemed to meet our goals for getting OCLC Grid Services out there in the hands of developers, in a way that can speed adoption and use, as well as getting their feedback on the services and what they’d like to see from us in the future, it seems clear we will do this again. We’re considering doing it in Europe in the Spring, and already have an RLG Partner institution lined up ready to host.

    Meanwhile, to keep up to date with this and other happenings, check out the Developer’s Network, and be sure to sign up for the mailing list where we will be sure to let you know about events at ALA Midwinter as well as the next Hackathon.

    What type of blog am we?

    Friday, November 14th, 2008 by Merrilee

    [This posting is inspired by a posting over at Walt At Random]

    There are numerous “blog analysis tools” out there, which I find endlessly amusing. Since this blog has many contributors, the results can be kind of …puzzling. However, I can never resist so I thought I would share some of these with you.

    First up, is the Gender Analyzer. This could be useful if you are looking at a blog that is written by an unknown individual (for example, “Pat the librarian” or “Chris the archivist”). Since HangingTogether is written by people from both genders, this one gives an interesting result — 77% male. (The Gender Analyzer is supported by uClassify and if you poke around on the uClassify web site, you will find information about their open text classifier, which could come in handy for some of you out there.)

    Some people are really into the whole Myers-Briggs thing. I confess that I have never bought into it (even less so after I read this article by Malcolm Gladwell). However, we live to serve. For those of you want to know what type of a team player HangingTogether is, we (collectively) are an INTJ. From the Typealyzer (complete with typos).

    The Scientists — [INTJ]
    The long-range thinking and individualistic type. They are especially good at looking at almost anything and figuring out a way of improving it – often with a highly creative and imaginative touch. They are intellectually curious and daring, but might be pshysically hesitant to try new things.

    The Scientists enjoy theoretical work that allows them to use their strong minds and bold creativity. Since they tend to be so abstract and theoretical in their communication they often have a problem communcating their visions to other people and need to learn patience and use conrete examples. Since they are extremly good at concentrating they often have no trouble working alone.

    Umm, yeah, I love to work alone. I do worry about our inability to communicate our vision, and think that using concrete (or even conrete) examples is a good idea. We’ll try to remember that.

    Well, what about readability? We took the Blog Readability Test, and… Well, see for yourself!

    blog readability test

    Since you are reading this blog, you must be a genius, too! We have no quibbles with this one.

    Onward to monetization. In these tough economic times (I have the feeling we are going to be using that phrase for some time to come), HangingTogether wonders if it has a future on its own. Fortunately, How Much Is Your Blog Worth? is here to tell us to keep the day job. We (collectively) are worth $15,242.58. At least you can be confident that we are not selling out to The Man.

    All we need now is a blog horoscope, and we’ll be good to go! For that, I’m not sure if we would use a median birthday, or use July 1st (the day of the first posting). Predicting our future will have to wait for another time.